So write to them about their faulty math! But is it possible to deny .....

"Add to this corporate consolidation the spread of biotech crops and you see why biodiversity is becoming so threatened. Biotech crops, like other industrial crops, are monocultures, with single varieties planted over millions of acres and sprayed with chemicals. Despite promises about wonder crops that would end Vitamin A deficiency or withstand drought, nearly all commercially available genetically modified foods are just one of two types, designed either to withstand a specific pesticide or to include a built-in pesticide."

Save your seeds folks, before they become owned.

Sure it is possible to deny. If they are as accurate in this statement as they were concerning the math, there may be no real concern to speak of .... thus the question regarding credibility and the loss thereof due to blatent errors.

more then just that, the original corn plants come from there so these are all the history of the corn set of plants. Kind of like stopping a construction project set to blow up the Egyptian pyramids... a lot of human history is at stake. Note they are also the source of tomatoes and potatoes... ancient cultures spread those useful plants across the Americas and then across the world after Columbus. I believe a few common spices are also suspected to have originated there.

I think govt. should make a strict law as china(one child policy) which is designed to control population, there are several other factors which tend to limit population growth.More population in need of resources which are limited,so the growth of population need to be controlled to equal demand and supply.

So write to them about their faulty math! But is it possible to deny .....

"Add to this corporate consolidation the spread of biotech crops and you see why biodiversity is becoming so threatened. Biotech crops, like other industrial crops, are monocultures, with single varieties planted over millions of acres and sprayed with chemicals. Despite promises about wonder crops that would end Vitamin A deficiency or withstand drought, nearly all commercially available genetically modified foods are just one of two types, designed either to withstand a specific pesticide or to include a built-in pesticide."

Save your seeds folks, before they become owned.[/quote]

Quote:

Sure it is possible to deny. If they are as accurate in this statement as they were concerning the math, there may be no real concern to speak of .... thus the question regarding credibility and the loss thereof due to blatent errors.

Fear of the unkown? Yes, F-E-A-R of thousands of years of natural evolution, full of natural biodiversity which is now threatened by a multinational corporation who now wants to OWN the rights to that biodiversity in order to make monocultures that can withstand their corporate owned and mega-profit producing herbicide ....

Quote:

but how does that make the previous claim untainted by the misrepresentation even if it is not the cause.

[/quote]

It's great that you like to be exact about math. Is the essential point tainted? Can we get to the point or must we consistently miss the most essential points in favour of haggling over exact numbers? You seem to miss the most essential points in favour of accuracy. Accuracy is good Wayne .....keep it up. But in doing so you are missing the main point ....

Pleease ..... see the point ... the most essential ....

Does Monsanto threaten biodiversity? It is a massive company with short term gain. They are NOT here to solve world hunger .... they are here to make some major profit due to world hunger. See the difference.

So write to them about their faulty math! But is it possible to deny .....

"Add to this corporate consolidation the spread of biotech crops and you see why biodiversity is becoming so threatened. Biotech crops, like other industrial crops, are monocultures, with single varieties planted over millions of acres and sprayed with chemicals. Despite promises about wonder crops that would end Vitamin A deficiency or withstand drought, nearly all commercially available genetically modified foods are just one of two types, designed either to withstand a specific pesticide or to include a built-in pesticide."

Save your seeds folks, before they become owned.

Quote:

Sure it is possible to deny. If they are as accurate in this statement as they were concerning the math, there may be no real concern to speak of .... thus the question regarding credibility and the loss thereof due to blatent errors.

Fear of the unkown? Yes, F-E-A-R of thousands of years of natural evolution, full of natural biodiversity which is now threatened by a multinational corporation who now wants to OWN the rights to that biodiversity in order to make monocultures that can withstand their corporate owned and mega-profit producing herbicide ....

Pssst ... GMOs are not limited to those related to herbicides but that is the "one trick pony" that is to cause us to run from them all ... except those which have been used for decades and we no longer fear them.

Quote:

Quote:

but how does that make the previous claim untainted by the misrepresentation even if it is not the cause.

It's great that you like to be exact about math.[/quote]

Or their claims, niether of which were accurate.

Quote:

Is the essential point tainted?

Yes, it is. We know it is not accurately presented.

Quote:

Can we get to the point or must we consistently miss the most essential points in favour of haggling over exact numbers?

What point? What is real or what they have said? How do we know which is which when they cannot give an accurate point?

Quote:

You seem to miss the most essential points in favour of accuracy.

You mena the fact the "most essential points" may not be truthfully presented? That would be an essential point to me.

Quote:

Accuracy is good Wayne .....keep it up. But in doing so you are missing the main point ....

You mean believe because you want us to instead of based on accurate information?

Quote:

Pleease ..... see the point ... the most essential ....

Monsanto bad ... GM bad ... except where the "bad" may have been due to misrepresentations, but they do not count.

Quote:

Does Monsanto threaten biodiversity? It is a massive company with short term gain. They are NOT here to solve world hunger .... they are here to make some major profit due to world hunger. See the difference.

You mean they are not causing food production to increase? Is that more of the inaccurate math? EVERY farmer is there to make a profit due to hunger or they will not be in business, so they are now bad? It is possible to do both in the real world where real facts are used instead of beliefs and misrepresentations like your source presented.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

Vendana Shiva, wearing her beautiful sari, is interviewwd by George of CBC.

She has a background in quantum physics but gave up her career in favor of seed-saving and organic farming. Through her academic realizations in physics, that all things are interconnected (she studied non-locality in quantum theory), she came to see that the same is at work in both the natural and social worlds. While the Cartesian revolution in science, which is still the foundation of contemporary thought, is based on mechanistic reductionism, fragmentation, and atomization, she sees that this perspective is clearly not the world. The world is one of interconnection. Quantum theory recognized this 100 years ago and biology is giving that up in the name of genetic engineering. The current application is in favor of more fragmentation.

In 1987, she was invited to a conference on bio-technology where she was made aware of companies who wanted to "own everything, patent everything, and collect royalties on life." The same agri-chemical companies were also the same pharmaeutical co's and were now spreading into the seed industry.

She saw a situation where people were realizing that they were not been told the complete story - of how much bio-diversity can produce and can increase food security. "If we are going to save the planet and give people what they need, we must protect bio-diversity."

Since 1997, 1/4 million farmers in India have committed suicide. These suicides started in the cotton-belt where seed monopolies have been established.

76% of all commercial seeds are now in the hands of 10 companies while most of GM seed are in the hands of one company. While we could be eating 8,500 plant species .... crops have been reduced to a very few ... where royalties can be collected.

She calls it the "Second Coming of Columbus". Where the first colonization was about land and territory, this second colonization is about the reproductive capacity of every seed and plant and the ownership of life itself. At one time you could get a patent on a new invention, something you have created ..... now it seems you can get a patent on something you have not ..... plants which have always been and on which we and other species depend on. As Vendana points out, it is so easy to take away the humanity of the one who is being colonized.

Saving seeds was made to be a criminal activity, so she enthusiastically encouraged Indian farmers to save seeds ... and they did. Why? Because the cotton farmers who once paid 5 rupees for each cotton seed, seeds which could be saved and planted over and over again, were now buying the same seeds at each new planting season at a cost of 4000 rupees every year .... an 8000% jump. Pesticides are not supposed to be used, yet farmers were incurring a cost at a 13 fold increase for there Bt cotton.

In a consumer economy, the goods end up selling for cheap in grocery stores because of massive subsidies... "400 billion is what was given to agri-business by richer countries to make costly production cheap". The combination of so-called free trade, subsidies, monopolies and dumping, which is what industrial agriculture is all about, to create low costs on the shelves.

As for our run-away human population .... the population will increase when you create economic insecurity. When you take away land, you get familes who beget more children for security reasons. When you leave land in people's hands you get more stable populations.

With a population of 7 billion we need to be more prudent with our resources. It doesn't make sense to use 10 units to produce only 1 which is what the industrial food system produces. It is a violent system which denigrates the micro-organisms in soil, destroys 70% of species and denudes entire waterways for irrigation of animal crops (where what is left is pollluted water).

40% of greenhouse gases are coming from a "bad" food system that is not sustainable and unjust. Food has become a commodity rather than the nourishment it is. As a business model it cuts off the innate relationship that makes nature work and makes human society work. We have a relationship with food and with animals. When a cow becones a milk or beef machine, we have cut off our relationship with it.

It is time that we adjust ourselves to a more "feminine" attitude. That of nurturing and caring and sharing. This feminine attitude is not one necessarily possessed by women, although women may be more naturally equipped in many ways, but as Vendana says, her grandfather was a great feminist. Without the qualities of the feminine, whether male or female, we are not going to survive.

The "solution" to prevent the suicides would be to promote organic production of more diverse crops, which studies have shown would have average drops in production from 20% - 80%. Even a 20% drop would translate into more deaths that were saved. That would decrease the abundance of people in the equation.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

The "solution" to prevent the suicides would be to promote organic production of more diverse crops, which studies have shown would have average drops in production from 20% - 80%. Even a 20% drop would translate into more deaths that were saved. That would decrease the abundance of people in the equation.

How utilitarian of you. In the meantime 200,000 Indian farmers of cotton, and nothing more diverse than cotton, have encountered an untenable situation ..... all for the possibility of some more ideal future situation. It was supposed to work for them. It didn't work for them, or for their families, their children or communities.

The "solution" to prevent the suicides would be to promote organic production of more diverse crops, which studies have shown would have average drops in production from 20% - 80%. Even a 20% drop would translate into more deaths that were saved. That would decrease the abundance of people in the equation.

How utilitarian of you. In the meantime 200,000 Indian farmers of cotton, and nothing more diverse than cotton, have encountered an untenable situation ..... all for the possibility of some more ideal future situation. It was supposed to work for them. It didn't work for them, or for their families, their children or communities.

In a population of over 1 billion, 200,000 farmer suicides is probably not going to be that much above the average. The real question would be to compare the data for farmer suicides for a longer period of time to see if there is a stable trend or an increase associated with new techniques.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

I was wrong, as 250,000 is a high number of suicides for farmers in India. To reach that total you have to include every suicide past 1997, which is five years before the Bt cotton was introduced. It seems there was some intentional misrepresentation by the anti-GM folks, which really makes me question everything else .... especially when I look into the larger picture.

In 2006, the state of Maharashtra, with 4,453 farmers’ suicides accounted for over a quarter of the all-India total of 17,060, according to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB). NCRB also stated that there were at least 16,196 farmers' suicides in India in 2008, bringing the total since 1997 to 199,132

<snip>

In the 1990s India woke up to a spate of farmers suicides. One of the major reporters of these suicides was the Rural Affairs Editor of The Hindu, P. Sainath. The first state where suicides were reported was Maharashtra. Soon newspapers began to report similar occurrences from Andhra Pradesh.[15] In the beginning it was believed that most of the suicides were happening among the cotton growers, especially those from Vidarbha.[16] A look at the figures given out by the State Crime Records Bureau, however, was sufficient to indicate that it was not just the cotton farmer but farmers as a professional category were suffering, irrespective of their holding size.[17] Moreover, it was not just the farmers from Vidarbha but all over Maharashtra who showed a significantly high suicide rate

<snip>

Causes

Research by various investigators like Raj Patel,[2] Nagraj,[18][19] Meeta and Rajivlochan,[21] identified a variety of causes. India was transforming rapidly into a primarily urban, industrial society with industry as its main source of income; the government and society had begun to be unconcerned about the condition of the countryside; moreover, a downturn in the urban economy was pushing a large number of distressed non-farmers to try their hand at cultivation; the farmer was also caught in a Scissors Crisis; in the absence of any responsible counselling either from the government or society there were many farmers who did not know how to survive in the changing economy. Such stresses pushed many into a corner where suicide became an option for them [22]

Research has also pointed to a certain types of technological change as having played an instrumental role in the problem. One study from the Punjab showed dramatic misuse of agricultural chemicals in farmer households in the absence of any guidance on how to correctly use these deadly chemicals and linked it to the rise in farm suicides wherever farm chemicals were in widespread use.[23] Important research in Andhra Pradesh showed the very rapid change in seed and pesticide products to have caused "deskilling" in the cotton sector.[24]

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

I was wrong, as 250,000 is a high number of suicides for farmers in India. To reach that total you have to include every suicide past 1997, which is five years before the Bt cotton was introduced. It seems there was some intentional misrepresentation by the anti-GM folks, which really makes me question everything else .... especially when I look into the larger picture.

In 2006, the state of Maharashtra, with 4,453 farmers’ suicides accounted for over a quarter of the all-India total of 17,060, according to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB). NCRB also stated that there were at least 16,196 farmers' suicides in India in 2008, bringing the total since 1997 to 199,132

<snip>

In the 1990s India woke up to a spate of farmers suicides. One of the major reporters of these suicides was the Rural Affairs Editor of The Hindu, P. Sainath. The first state where suicides were reported was Maharashtra. Soon newspapers began to report similar occurrences from Andhra Pradesh.[15] In the beginning it was believed that most of the suicides were happening among the cotton growers, especially those from Vidarbha.[16] A look at the figures given out by the State Crime Records Bureau, however, was sufficient to indicate that it was not just the cotton farmer but farmers as a professional category were suffering, irrespective of their holding size.[17] Moreover, it was not just the farmers from Vidarbha but all over Maharashtra who showed a significantly high suicide rate

<snip>

Causes

Research by various investigators like Raj Patel,[2] Nagraj,[18][19] Meeta and Rajivlochan,[21] identified a variety of causes. India was transforming rapidly into a primarily urban, industrial society with industry as its main source of income; the government and society had begun to be unconcerned about the condition of the countryside; moreover, a downturn in the urban economy was pushing a large number of distressed non-farmers to try their hand at cultivation; the farmer was also caught in a Scissors Crisis; in the absence of any responsible counselling either from the government or society there were many farmers who did not know how to survive in the changing economy. Such stresses pushed many into a corner where suicide became an option for them [22]

Research has also pointed to a certain types of technological change as having played an instrumental role in the problem. One study from the Punjab showed dramatic misuse of agricultural chemicals in farmer households in the absence of any guidance on how to correctly use these deadly chemicals and linked it to the rise in farm suicides wherever farm chemicals were in widespread use.[23] Important research in Andhra Pradesh showed the very rapid change in seed and pesticide products to have caused "deskilling" in the cotton sector.[24]

Wayne, there are several reasons for Indian farm suicides, and while you rely on info from the International Food Policy Research Institute, aka IFPRI ... Who are these people? Be careful now ... it's a little bit difficult to see where the information is coming from, especially where large profits are at stake. People are invested in this. One must take into consideration jobs which are at stake so they are careful in not showing themselves to be GMO's. They do not show themselves as that ... but look to their logo. Look to the IFPRI ..and find out who is there.

1997 witnessed the first emergence of farm suicides in India. A rapid increase in indebtedness was at the root of farmers losing their lives. Check it.

It seemed the percentage of farmers commiting suicide would not have been off based on the population, but it was since the data indicated the start point would have to be prior to 1997 in order to reach that level. Since the GM cotton was not introduced until 2002, the percentage was quite a bit higher than would have been expected.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

I was wrong, as 250,000 is a high number of suicides for farmers in India. To reach that total you have to include every suicide past 1997, which is five years before the Bt cotton was introduced. It seems there was some intentional misrepresentation by the anti-GM folks, which really makes me question everything else .... especially when I look into the larger picture.

In 2006, the state of Maharashtra, with 4,453 farmers’ suicides accounted for over a quarter of the all-India total of 17,060, according to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB). NCRB also stated that there were at least 16,196 farmers' suicides in India in 2008, bringing the total since 1997 to 199,132

<snip>

In the 1990s India woke up to a spate of farmers suicides. One of the major reporters of these suicides was the Rural Affairs Editor of The Hindu, P. Sainath. The first state where suicides were reported was Maharashtra. Soon newspapers began to report similar occurrences from Andhra Pradesh.[15] In the beginning it was believed that most of the suicides were happening among the cotton growers, especially those from Vidarbha.[16] A look at the figures given out by the State Crime Records Bureau, however, was sufficient to indicate that it was not just the cotton farmer but farmers as a professional category were suffering, irrespective of their holding size.[17] Moreover, it was not just the farmers from Vidarbha but all over Maharashtra who showed a significantly high suicide rate

<snip>

Causes

Research by various investigators like Raj Patel,[2] Nagraj,[18][19] Meeta and Rajivlochan,[21] identified a variety of causes. India was transforming rapidly into a primarily urban, industrial society with industry as its main source of income; the government and society had begun to be unconcerned about the condition of the countryside; moreover, a downturn in the urban economy was pushing a large number of distressed non-farmers to try their hand at cultivation; the farmer was also caught in a Scissors Crisis; in the absence of any responsible counselling either from the government or society there were many farmers who did not know how to survive in the changing economy. Such stresses pushed many into a corner where suicide became an option for them [22]

Research has also pointed to a certain types of technological change as having played an instrumental role in the problem. One study from the Punjab showed dramatic misuse of agricultural chemicals in farmer households in the absence of any guidance on how to correctly use these deadly chemicals and linked it to the rise in farm suicides wherever farm chemicals were in widespread use.[23] Important research in Andhra Pradesh showed the very rapid change in seed and pesticide products to have caused "deskilling" in the cotton sector.[24]

Wayne, there are several reasons for Indian farm suicides, and while you rely on info from the International Food Policy Research Institute, aka IFPRI ... Who are these people? Be careful now ... it's a little bit difficult to see where the information is coming from, especially where large profits are at stake.

Is there data to refute the reference points I used? If not the question of the source is a logical fallacy.

Quote:

People are invested in this. One must take into consideration jobs which are at stake so they are careful in not showing themselves to be GMO's. They do not show themselves as that ... but look to their logo. Look to the IFPRI ..and find out who is there.

As opposed to those people who have a vested interest in the opposition of GM products?

Quote:

1997 witnessed the first emergence of farm suicides in India. A rapid increase in indebtedness was at the root of farmers losing their lives. Check it.

No, suicide is fairly common in India even before 1997. It was after 1996-1997 where the rate diverged from the averag rate for the general population.

Bt cotton is the only GM crop approved in India. Bt cottonseeds are modified with the toxin Cry to control the bollworm pest. (3) Bollworm have developed resistance to Bt cotton, so a new version, ‘Bollgard II’, has been created, containing 2 additional toxic genes. As pests become more tolerant to insect-resistant GM crops, more toxins have to be developed, adding increasing amounts of toxins to the food supply.

Bt cotton has been linked to a wave of smallholder farmer suicides in India. Over the last 20 years, India’s agriculture has been opened up to the global market, increasing costs and trapping many farmers in debt. As agriculture in India has become more focused on producing cash crops, multinational corporations have increased their control. Big agribusinesses like Monsanto market expensive biotechnology as a solution to farmers struggling to compete in the global market.

Between 1995 and 2010, more than a quarter of a million farmers have committed suicide in India. Debt and poverty is driving many farmers to suicide, some of whom have swallowed the poisonous pesticides used to spray their Bt cotton crops. (4) The highest rates of suicide are in areas producing the most cotton. (5) Over 50,000 farmers took their own lives in Maharashtra between 1995 and 2010. Maharashtra was the richest state during that period. (6)

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein